a 50mm 1.4 would be good for you if that's what you're used to, it will give you about an 85mm focal length because of the crop sensor, it will be good for the portrait type of stuff you're talking about.

otherwise, something between 24-35mm as a prime would be nice for you, and maybe an 85mm 1.8 prime would be a good option too.

yeah, what Reed just said. If you're used to 50mm, stick with that. I also recommend the f/1.4. For me, the 50mm was too close on a cropped body. But, ever since I've moved to FF, it's on the camera most often. But, my recommendation is to go with whatever you're used to.

a 50mm 1.4 would be good for you if that's what you're used to, it will give you about an 85mm focal length because of the crop sensor, it will be good for the portrait type of stuff you're talking about.

otherwise, something between 24-35mm as a prime would be nice for you, and maybe an 85mm 1.8 prime would be a good option too.

but again, if you're used to a 50 prime, just stick with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chewy734

yeah, what Reed just said. If you're used to 50mm, stick with that. I also recommend the f/1.4. For me, the 50mm was too close on a cropped body. But, ever since I've moved to FF, it's on the camera most often. But, my recommendation is to go with whatever you're used to.

Thanks for the recommendations. Just found out that not only is it the camera but it includes the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens. Is this worth keeping? For sure I will be getting 50 1.4!

The 28-135 isn't a "bad" lens, but neither is it particularly great. When I had one it was decently sharp from 28 to about 100mm or so - kinda crappy beyond. Also the IS is from the 1st generation (late '90s) and doesn't perform nearly as well as that in more modern lenses. The current kit lenses 18-55IS and 55-250IS are both at least as sharp, cheaper and have better IS than the 28-135.

My recommendation for a low cost kit for the 7D would be:
18-55IS
55-250IS
50/1.8 or 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 depending on budget and preference.

If your interest deepens and budget expands you may find that the 10-22 and 17-55IS zoom lenses also work very well with the 7D. All the L's and primes work well too, but they generally cost a lot more and may be more specialized.

I'm plotting my strategy to finagle a 7D. No chance I'll ever get one as a present.

If you don't need the long reach or a versatile walk-around lens, I'll echo the others and put in a plug for the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8. Then if you want to go wider, the 10-22mm is very nice. All of them can be found on Craigslist or B&H used shop quite often.

My wife ordered the "kit" from amazon. Are you saying that amazon is selling out dated kits? I may cancel the kit and order the camera and the 50 1.4.

joe

Amazon sells current Canon lenses, which includes the 28-135. But that lens, like several other Canon lenses, is growing a bit long in the tooth.

The price difference between the kit and the body-only is $190. You could sell the 28-135 for more than that, although it may not be something you want to deal with. I've seen the 28-135 kit lenses going for $290-$320 on Craiglist.

My wife ordered the "kit" from amazon. Are you saying that amazon is selling out dated kits? I may cancel the kit and order the camera and the 50 1.4.

joe

Sorry to get caught up in the semantics of what "kit" means. The 28-135 was initially a standalone lens that was later offered along with some Canon camera bodies as a kit. The 18-55IS was developed explicitly as a kit lens to be included with most inexpensive Canon DSLRs. The 55-250IS was developed a bit after the 18-55IS to complement the shorter lens, but uses the same materials and technology (and at similar cost). Though the 28-135 is an older lens Canon didn't start offering it in kits until relatively recently - well after the introduction of the 18-55IS.

I'll echo what others have said: If you are getting a particularly good deal on the combo of 7D and 28-135 then you might as well get it and sell the lens later. It's not an awful lens - it's just that I believe some more recent lenses are better and cheaper. I will say, though, that lots of folks eventually sell the 28-135s out of their kits and this has depressed the price in the used market. Asking prices around $300 may be common, but I wouldn't count on actually getting more than something in the low $200's these days. By comparison, the 18-55IS can usually be found used for $80-100 and the 55-250IS for $150-200.

I have been discussing this topic of lenses with several friends/forum members in the last week and my vote still stands with a 50mm 1.4 (or 1.8) and a 17-40 f/4 L (as long as you don't use a Rebel - which in this case you don't). The 17-40 L is a great walk around lens for the crop sensor cameras and obviously you know the 50mm is perfect for portraits.

Oh and the 28-135mm isn't a bad lens at all but 28mm isn't wide enough on that crop sensor so if one was so inclined to have a lens like that the 18-135mm is a better option at the same price point.

I found it very constraining vs. the options today. You either have to carry three other lenses or just miss shots that you'd get with a zoom.

Besides, on a 1.6x crop a 35mm is closer to a "normal" lens, if that's what you're trying to achieve. A fast 50mm made sense to me way back when I was shooting at ASA 25,100, 200 and, gosh darn, 400, but my modern cameras are WAY faster than that these days.

I had my 24-105mm on my 5D2 yesterday, shooting around Rockefeller Plaza, Top of the Rock, in a restaurant and on the street. I shot about 100-shots and they varied from about half at 24mm shooting archetectural to 90mm shooting friends and some icons. 50mm doesn't begin to be wide enough for scenics and archetectural with a field of view equivalent to 80mm. I did shoot a handful in the 80-90mm range, but those were more portrait style of people at the table or a head shot with the Empire State Building in the BG.

I had no bag or vest, just one camera and one lens. I checked the battery and card before I left the hotel and made sure that the lens was clean.

If we're going advise people to get one prime lens and they're buying a crop-sensor, I think that we should at least steer them toward a good 35mm. 50mm on a 1.6x crop starts getting what I consider a "portrait" lens. It's very limiting for most scenics and many "travel" shots. I think that starting with a kit zoom is a better position for most people today, particularly if it's a "true" wide-angle to portrait range zoom. If they can afford L-series and understand why, then go L, but I think most noobs will waste money with an L-series.

All my stuff is L-series and I don't know the alternative brands well at all, so I can't contribute specifically to a budget discussion, but I think that someone starting with a 50mm is going to soon want something else.

All my stuff is L-series and I don't know the alternative brands well at all, so I can't contribute specifically to a budget discussion, but I think that someone starting with a 50mm is going to soon want something else.

If we're going advise people to get one prime lens and they're buying a crop-sensor, I think that we should at least steer them toward a good 35mm. 50mm on a 1.6x crop starts getting what I consider a "portrait" lens. It's very limiting for most scenics and many "travel" shots. I think that starting with a kit zoom is a better position for most people today, particularly if it's a "true" wide-angle to portrait range zoom. If they can afford L-series and understand why, then go L, but I think most noobs will waste money with an L-series.

I agree with you Dave. With my 20D, I rarely used my 50mm f/1.8, but with my 5D2 I love the 50mm f/1.4 and use it often.

I found it very constraining vs. the options today. You either have to carry three other lenses or just miss shots that you'd get with a zoom.

Besides, on a 1.6x crop a 35mm is closer to a "normal" lens, if that's what you're trying to achieve. A fast 50mm made sense to me way back when I was shooting at ASA 25,100, 200 and, gosh darn, 400, but my modern cameras are WAY faster than that these days.

I had my 24-105mm on my 5D2 yesterday, shooting around Rockefeller Plaza, Top of the Rock, in a restaurant and on the street. I shot about 100-shots and they varied from about half at 24mm shooting archetectural to 90mm shooting friends and some icons. 50mm doesn't begin to be wide enough for scenics and archetectural with a field of view equivalent to 80mm. I did shoot a handful in the 80-90mm range, but those were more portrait style of people at the table or a head shot with the Empire State Building in the BG.

I had no bag or vest, just one camera and one lens. I checked the battery and card before I left the hotel and made sure that the lens was clean.

If we're going advise people to get one prime lens and they're buying a crop-sensor, I think that we should at least steer them toward a good 35mm. 50mm on a 1.6x crop starts getting what I consider a "portrait" lens. It's very limiting for most scenics and many "travel" shots. I think that starting with a kit zoom is a better position for most people today, particularly if it's a "true" wide-angle to portrait range zoom. If they can afford L-series and understand why, then go L, but I think most noobs will waste money with an L-series.

All my stuff is L-series and I don't know the alternative brands well at all, so I can't contribute specifically to a budget discussion, but I think that someone starting with a 50mm is going to soon want something else.

Dave

Dave, Thank you for you honest opinion.
I was at my local electronics store yesterday and I spent some time with the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and I absolutley loved it. They did not have a 24-70mm f/2.8L for me to look at. Most guys around here have both of these lenses, but if you had to choose one, which one would that be and why?

Dave, Thank you for you honest opinion.
I was at my local electronics store yesterday and I spent some time with the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and I absolutley loved it. They did not have a 24-70mm f/2.8L for me to look at. Most guys around here have both of these lenses, but if you had to choose one, which one would that be and why?

Joe

If you can pony up for the 24-70, go for it. 2.8 produces some beautiful bokeh. Just beware it is one heavy son of a b*tch (nicknamed the brick). However that being said if this is your only lens and you want a touch more tele the 24-105 is also VERY nice. you lose 1 full stop of speed on the aperture end but that might not be the end of the world for you... especially for the price difference. I love my 24-70mm 2.8 and it's my go to, most used lens but I think I'd be 98% just as happy with the 24-105mm, I'm just a whore for extreme bokeh from the f/2.8.